Reintroducing the 21st Amendment (Final vote)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Cris

[windjammer]

I have discussed with Cris by PM and here is my amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surprised I guess?

Well, simply:
Obviously, except Lumine maybe, every officeholder who faced an automatic impeachment trial should have been impeached because all of them stayed blatantly inactive after the failure of this impeachment trial.
However, I realized that a majority of senators will unfortunately never be able to agree on impeaching someone who hasn't posted anything the last week because "MUH REAL LIFE" (the senators indeed forget that LOA exist and that's not an excuse).
The only officeholder who was going to be impeached was Riley (lol), and it wasn't an automatic impeachment.
The other problem is that senators shouldn't be impeached, they should be "expulsed". And the senate has rules for that. And we could easily slightly amend them of course.
What do you think about Cranberry?
If you agree, it would be much appreciated if you could withdraw your amendment. If you disagree, well, I will object.

As you wish.

[windjammer]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object to Cranberry's amendment.

[windjammer]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

There are still the President, the Veep, Justices that are affected by this amendment... I do know that Potus himself wasn't affected by this amendment, I never said so either, just that we do need swift(er) impeachments for those offices affected by it - a Potus situation could after al very well arise with other officeholders, those mentioned in this amendment...

You oppose my amendment because you seem to believe that abolishing the XIXth amendment would abolish every impeachment.
This is not true.
Even after having abolished the XIXth amendment, senators would still be able to impeach:
-the President, the VP, and every cabinet officer with that: Article I, Section II Clause 1 of the Third Constitution: "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, Articles of Impeachment may be proposed against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.Impeachment proceedings shall be initiated only when at least three Senators have publicly announced their support of the Articles.23 "
-and senators would still be able to be expulsed the senators: section VII or VIII of the senate rules.

You have the right to oppose my amendment. But it's just I have the feeling you have misunderstood my intentions.

[windjammer]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

There are still the President, the Veep, Justices that are affected by this amendment... I do know that Potus himself wasn't affected by this amendment, I never said so either, just that we do need swift(er) impeachments for those offices affected by it - a Potus situation could after al very well arise with other officeholders, those mentioned in this amendment...

You oppose my amendment because you seem to believe that abolishing the XIXth amendment would abolish every impeachment.
This is not true.
Even after having abolished the XIXth amendment, senators would still be able to impeach:
-the President, the VP, and every cabinet officer with that: Article I, Section II Clause 1 of the Third Constitution: "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, Articles of Impeachment may be proposed against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.Impeachment proceedings shall be initiated only when at least three Senators have publicly announced their support of the Articles.23 "
-and senators would still be able to be expulsed the senators: section VII or VIII of the senate rules.

You have the right to oppose my amendment. But it's just I have the feeling you have misunderstood my intentions.

I have not. I know that impeachments are not abolished with it - it just makes calling for an officeholder's impeachment much more complicated. In a situation where urgent action is needed, for example when the President is absent, it can take its time until three Senators announce their support. The 19th amendment does away with a bit of this complication, by enabling impeachments to be posted after seven days of inactivity any way. Think of the situation I told you in PM - it is helpful there to have a "safety mechanism" in place, in case something goes wrong and urgent action is needed. I do know that also should this amendment be abolished, impeachments are still possible. I do however also think, that there are cases where such a "shortcut", which the 19th amendment obviously aims to be, will be needed and we will be glad to have not abolished it then.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.1700
It took less than 12 hours for that .

[windjammer]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

There are still the President, the Veep, Justices that are affected by this amendment... I do know that Potus himself wasn't affected by this amendment, I never said so either, just that we do need swift(er) impeachments for those offices affected by it - a Potus situation could after al very well arise with other officeholders, those mentioned in this amendment...

You oppose my amendment because you seem to believe that abolishing the XIXth amendment would abolish every impeachment.
This is not true.
Even after having abolished the XIXth amendment, senators would still be able to impeach:
-the President, the VP, and every cabinet officer with that: Article I, Section II Clause 1 of the Third Constitution: "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, Articles of Impeachment may be proposed against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.Impeachment proceedings shall be initiated only when at least three Senators have publicly announced their support of the Articles.23 "
-and senators would still be able to be expulsed the senators: section VII or VIII of the senate rules.

You have the right to oppose my amendment. But it's just I have the feeling you have misunderstood my intentions.

I have not. I know that impeachments are not abolished with it - it just makes calling for an officeholder's impeachment much more complicated. In a situation where urgent action is needed, for example when the President is absent, it can take its time until three Senators announce their support. The 19th amendment does away with a bit of this complication, by enabling impeachments to be posted after seven days of inactivity any way. Think of the situation I told you in PM - it is helpful there to have a "safety mechanism" in place, in case something goes wrong and urgent action is needed. I do know that also should this amendment be abolished, impeachments are still possible. I do however also think, that there are cases where such a "shortcut", which the 19th amendment obviously aims to be, will be needed and we will be glad to have not abolished it then.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.1700
It took less than 12 hours for that .

You told me yourself Potus was a special case

Potus is indeed a special case. But he has never been concerned by the 19th amendment. He has been impeached after normal procedures: ie 3 senators sponsoring impeachment, etc.

So you can't use your fear of him in order to oppose my amendment .

[windjammer]

Of course, expulsion does make sense for Senators, but Potus is the best example why we need precisely impeachments, that is for non-Senator federal officeholders... So no, I don't support your amendment, and I will not withdraw mine.

My amendment doesn't end "impeachments." Potus wasn'r even concerned by the 19th amendment. So I don't understand your opposition. Without the 19th amendment, 3 senators can still motion for an impeachment, like what happened with him. But that's your right

There are still the President, the Veep, Justices that are affected by this amendment... I do know that Potus himself wasn't affected by this amendment, I never said so either, just that we do need swift(er) impeachments for those offices affected by it - a Potus situation could after al very well arise with other officeholders, those mentioned in this amendment...

You oppose my amendment because you seem to believe that abolishing the XIXth amendment would abolish every impeachment.
This is not true.
Even after having abolished the XIXth amendment, senators would still be able to impeach:
-the President, the VP, and every cabinet officer with that: Article I, Section II Clause 1 of the Third Constitution: "In the same manner as the proposition of a Bill, Articles of Impeachment may be proposed against any executive or judicial officer of the federal government.Impeachment proceedings shall be initiated only when at least three Senators have publicly announced their support of the Articles.23 "
-and senators would still be able to be expulsed the senators: section VII or VIII of the senate rules.

You have the right to oppose my amendment. But it's just I have the feeling you have misunderstood my intentions.

I have not. I know that impeachments are not abolished with it - it just makes calling for an officeholder's impeachment much more complicated. In a situation where urgent action is needed, for example when the President is absent, it can take its time until three Senators announce their support. The 19th amendment does away with a bit of this complication, by enabling impeachments to be posted after seven days of inactivity any way. Think of the situation I told you in PM - it is helpful there to have a "safety mechanism" in place, in case something goes wrong and urgent action is needed. I do know that also should this amendment be abolished, impeachments are still possible. I do however also think, that there are cases where such a "shortcut", which the 19th amendment obviously aims to be, will be needed and we will be glad to have not abolished it then.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.1700
It took less than 12 hours for that .

You told me yourself Potus was a special case

Potus is indeed a special case. But he has never been concerned by the 19th amendment. He has been impeached after normal procedures: ie 3 senators sponsoring impeachment, etc.

So you can't use your fear of him in order to oppose my amendment .

And you can't use him as an argument for supporting your amendment

My argument is that the only inactive officeholder who was going to be impeached was Riley, and that was by the classic way. So, that the 19th amendment was useless.

I don't understand why I can't use the example of our dear inactvive officeholder .

[windjammer]

Cranberry's amendment has been adopted.

[windjammer]

Now I believe it's time to explain why I want to simply repeal this amendment. I completely agree with Oakvale and Bore, this is basically unnecessary.

1) Firstly, the senates shouldn't be impeached. They should be EXPULSED and there senate procedures for that.

2) Secondly, the "I concur with" is just extremely ANNOYING. I mean, this is useless. An active Justice could forget to say 'I concur with" where an inactive Justice could just say these few words and not doing anything.

3) And finally, the impeachment part for the president, the senators and the Vice president is annoying and useless. Useless because no one is going to impeach someone who was inactive for just a week except me. That's why I hope the senators will vote in favor of my amendment when Cranberry a senator will object .

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object to Windjammer's amendment.

[windjammer]

Senators, a vote on Windjammer's amendment is now open. Please vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[windjammer]

Aye

[windjammer]

This has enough votes to fail. I let 24 hours for those who haven't voted to vote if they want their vote to be counted in my tracker.

[windjammer]

The results of the vote:
Aye (1): Windjammer
Nay (: Talleyrand, Cris, SWE, TNF, Cranberry, Griffin, Polnut, Lief
Non voting (1): Hagrid

Windjammer's amndment has failed to pass the senate.

[windjammer]

Thank you for trying to repeal that wrongheaded amendment, Windjammer.

You're welcome oakvale.
I wonder how much time will it be needed to convince the senators to repeal this.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because a senator isn't IMPEACHED but EXPULSED. And we have senate rules for that.

[windjammer]

Senators have 36 hours to object.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is our constitution that only allows impeachment for judicial or executive officer. Neither a judicial or executive officer is a senator.
The 21st amendment contradicts the constitution. My amendment would fix it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here are the senate rules, (I will soon try to amendment some things in the senate rules), so my amendment wouldn't avoid senators to be removed from office, just to be clear.

[windjammer]

Windjammer amendmen't has been adopted.

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, I agree with oakvale on this issue. This SC part is just quite boring. A justice who doesn't participate at all to the justice discussions and would just post "I concur with" would not be prosecuted whereas an active associate Justice who would participate a lot to the justice discussions would be prosecuted if he forgets to post "I concur with". This is not a good measurement of inactivity. This is just A-N-N-O-Y-I-N-G for the associate justices.

If a member of the SC is inactive, like Torie was, article of impeachment should be introcuded by a normal way: ie 3 senators sponsoring it. What happened to Torie.

[windjammer]

Sounds good.

I don't really like these impeachments though, because oftentimes the law goes unfollowed. Not to single myself out, but at the end of my last tenure I was just tired of everything and sort of disappeared for a bit. I know it was long enough for the impeachment proceedings, but they didn't kick in because no one cared or noticed. Griffin has done a better job at, ahem, politicizing absences, but... I don't think this procedure works.

Couldn't we just make being absent an "impeachable offense," and if folks decide to go through with impeachment proceedings then that's what they do?

Hagrid, just FTR:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wanted to repeal this amendment, but unfortunately, the senate has decided to kill my move by wide margins .

[windjammer]

Griffin: the amendment stripping "a member of the Senate" was adopted yesterday or 2 days ago. This amendment is just stripping the justice part. Do you object?

Lief: the senate defeated an amendment repealing the Nineteenth Amendment. You have still 10 hours to object to this amendment if you wish to.

[windjammer]

Senators, a vote is now open on Windjammer's amendment.
Please, vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

Aye